Structurally, I see three types of fractal iteration growth. I don’t know if these are already catalogued and properly named somewhere else, but this is what I see:
1. Growth from a nucleus pushing outward – analogy: extrusion.
2. Growth from an outer skin additing length and girth by adding layers: tree.
3. Growth by cellular doubling and entire organism enlarges: embryo.

“A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has practically no wavelength. Actually a thetan is in a very, very small amount of mass. .From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago — a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces and some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.)

“So we have this thetan capable of considerations, postulates and opinions, and the most native qualities to him — in other words the things which he is most likely to postulate — are these qualities which you find in the top “buttons” of the Chart of Attitudes. “Trust”, “Full Responsibility”, etc.
So we have then actually described a thetan when we have gotten Axioms One and Two. Without these known well an auditor would have an awfully hard time exteriorizing (Exteriorizing: exteriorization: the state achieved in which the thetan can be outside his body with certainty) somebody — because if you thought that you reached in with a pair of forceps and dragged someone out of his head, well, this it not the way it is. You would not be thinking of a thetan. To exteriorize something that can’t possibly be grabbed hold of, that’s quite a trick.

“A thetan has to postulate he’s inside before you can have him postulate that he’s outside. But if he heavily postulated that he’s inside, now your trick as an auditor is to do what? Override this thetan’s postulates? That would fit into the field of hypnotism, or maybe you could do it with a club, but the way we do it in Scientology is a little more delicate than these. We simply ask him to postulate that he’s outside, and if he can and does, why, he’s outside. And if he can’t, why, he’s still inside.

“Thetans think of themselves as being in the MEST universe (MEST universe: the physical universe, from the initial letters of matter, energy, space, time). Of course, this is a joke, too. As the Static they can’t possibly be in a universe.”

.

Theta (Static, individuality) is a consideration. Thetan (individual) is also a consideration extended from theta. Further considerations such as, “Trust”, “Full Responsibility”, etc., are then extended from thetan. It may seem that the thetan is creating these considerations, but any consideration is a manifestation whose source is unknowable. It is an error to think of thetan as the “creator” of considerations extended from it.

Exteriorization is not “a thetan being outside his body with certainty.” Exteriorization is simply non-fixation of attention on the body. Body is there, but there is no consideration of using the body as a reference point. Such a state may be achieved by having a person look at the body and realize that there is no need to consider body as a reference or orientation point.

A state of exteriorization from the physical universe may also be achieved in a similar manner by looking hard at the physical universe and realizing that there is no need to consider the physical universe as a reference or orientation point.

Hubbard says in THE PHOENIX LECTURES:AXIOM THREE: SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/ OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

The whole secret of perception is right there. Do you believe that you can see? Well, all right, go ahead and believe that you can see but you’d certainly better believe that there’s something there to see or you won’t see. So there are two considerations to sight, and they are covered immediately here in that you have to believe there is something to see and then that you can see it. And so you have perception. All of the tremendous number of categories to perception come under this heading, and are covered by that Axiom. So that Axiom should be known very, very well.

.

We cannot confirm with certainty that MEST is a product of THETA. This axiom is an assumption. THETA (Static, individuality) is a consideration itself. It may be interesting to look at what triggers the consideration of Theta. There is something beyond THETA that gives rise to considerations.

All we can say is that we experience the capabilities of considering (postulating) and perceiving; and that we observe space, energy, objects, form and time. We cannot say for sure that an individuality lies behind these capabilities. We cannot say for sure it is considerations that ultimately underlie MEST.

We don’t know where these capabilities of postulating and perceiving come from. These capabilities are just there. We don’t know where MEST ultimately comes from. It is some sort of manifestation that is observed and considered.

Perception results from the interpretation of some sort of input. Then perception itself becomes subject to further considerations. The initial input cannot be known for itself. That input is not necessarily a result of some belief. One may believe that input to be there or not there.

The looming inconsistency of Axiom Zero lies with the assumption that there is an unknowable background to existence. This is a conjecture and not an axiom.

A better Axiom Zero would be EVERYTHING IS MANIFESTED and leave it at that. This version deletes the conjecture regarding the oxymoron of “unknowable” and is a consistent statement. The tautological corollary to this is NOTHING IS UNMANIFESTED. The remaining synonymous corollaries if you will are NOTHING IS UNKNOWABLE and also, EVERYTHING IS KNOWABLE.

The reason that this tautology is complete is because I have included each real aspect plus each imaginary conjecture. The imaginary conjectures of unknowable are imaginary because the conjectures are knowable while stating they represent something unknowable.

The reason that this dichotomy is imaginary is that there is “something” on one side of the dichotomy and there is ” ” on the other side of the dichotomy. I could not italicize , so I just put quotation marks around it. (humor)

The tautological process for arriving at Axiom Zero is “Yes and yes.” Which run aloud sounds like “yes this and yes that.” This answers the question of “What is manifested?”

If you are truly searching for clean and consistent statements of this imaginary dichotomy, this is the cleanest and simplest so far. The Axioms that you are writing seem to be the framework for a particular frame of reference that you are trying to create. When you write the Axioms, then you will have your framework and you may have a kind of consistency; However, the hamster wheel of this universe does not seem to allow us to arrive at the absolute consistency that we desire. Understanding this may help quell this desire. This is my neti-neti for the day.

The universe is beautiful to me in this respect. Neti-neti is a Vedic process. Maybe the etymology comes from the universe’s own process and child-like taunt of “nani-nani boo-boo, you can’t get me.”

All that AXIOM ZERO is saying is that there is manifested reality only and that’s it. Anything beyond that is a supposition or conjecture which then becomes part of the manifested reality (see the corollaries). If one looks for the background of the manifested reality, then none can be found.

This axiom is based on LOOKING and not on any logic. Language has its limitation and focus on language can get one get mired into logic. The solution to that is looking..

So, let me know if there is any inconsistency from the viewpoint of LOOKING, which is senior to logic.

“This axiom does not claim to “know” that the background of manifested reality is unmanifested and unknowable. It simply looks at the difficulty in conceiving the unmanifested. It is this failure to know the unmanifested that leads to KHTK AXIOM ZERO.”

Take a look yourself. Looking is senior to logic here.

This axiom would be violated if a background to manifested reality could be found.

The inconsistency was based on your logical leap. This is what is inconsistent. Unknowable is not derived from looking but from logically leaping to a conjecture which cannot be known, seen, or sensed.

How is this wording for AXIOM ZERO:KHTK AXIOM ZERO: THIS IS A UNIVERSE OF MANIFESTATION THAT IS CATEGORIZED AS MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME. WHAT IS CONCEIVED TO BE BEYOND THIS UNIVERSE IS ALSO A MANIFESTATION CATEGORIZED THAT IS CATEGORIZED AS CONSIDERATION.

I’m pleased that we are sanding the wood smooth… but on the bottom side of the wood, when we sand through . . . ?

also for zero we can say: THERE IS UNIVERSE

Many of your statements above can be additional axiomatic statements. Trying to write axioms is for me new and I am not proficient. My thoughts and writing are not so organized as yours. I’m not sure how to proceed with additional axioms. Also, I’m not sure how short of a statement is clear before it becomes cryptic as my statement There Is Universe. Maybe I can shorten this to “There Is.” But does it help or just leave the reader flat?

Yes. So when the snake has had its meal, what is left? I leap to conclude “nothing” but would this be so? Just because I can create an analogy doesn’t mean that I have revealed a great Truth. It might mean; probably means that I have only added to the ballooning sphere of conjectures.

I think that the purpose should be to remove inconsistencies among the concepts that already exist rather than generate new concepts. How about this:KHTK AXIOM ZERO: All that exists ultimately is matter, energy, space, time and thought. There is nothing else beside them.

Corollary: Everything derives from matter, energy, space, time and thought.

Something about us will not accept that all that is, is what is, and I am wondering why this is.

The reasons could be:
1. The mechanism of looking might be the result of a fractal iteration which does not stop. Maybe this iteration is the mechanism of perception itself; the source of creation. We incessantly look and this looking is iterating. There is some consistency to this. The looker and what is being looked at are one and the same. Because of this one cannot find an end to any road. This gives the sense and perception that we must keep going. Never stop looking. Your Nirvana provides extinguishable self and a possible ending. But Nirvana seems to be well insulated within protective considerations. And why wouldn’t it be? But these are cart-before-horse conjectures. Maybe my compulsion to leap to conclusions is a part of this framework; part of this mechanism. -more conjecture – eeek! haha, now I am finding myself quite funny.

Desire to me seems manifested throughout the universe as gravity. It is woven utterly into the physics of the two terminal universe as attractive force. Even inertia is expresses itself as “desiring” bodies in motion to remain in motion and bodies at rest “desiring” to remain at rest.

Anthropomorphically we call this desire, affinity, love, sex, and etc.,. Physically we have “charged” particles, gravity, electromotive forces, vacuums, and all manner of instabilities.

Maybe a better understanding of the physics of gravity will improve our understanding of our own desire.

Thank you Vin. It is original for me, however, I’ve long since given up on having an original thought from this universe. If I research enough, I usually find a self-similar and recursive thought out there.

I’ve begun thinking of The Self in this way as well. Take you and I for instance — our selves can be looked at as individual; but spend enough time together and our selves look more self-similar and recursive. If this is the pattern of biologic Nature, why wouldn’t it also be the pattern of existence?

Inherent tension seems to be a property of space. The main characteristic of space is separation. So, there seem to be a relation between this separation and tension. Separation also seems to be a characteristic of any dichotomy. Therefore, Dichotomies may have something to do with space.

Tension to separate seems to be balanced by some sort of attraction. This attraction within space may be the sense of gravitational attraction. Attraction increases with mass. Does mass solidify separation in some manner?

Creation seems to bring about dichotomy, separation and tension. The first manifestation of creation seems to be space. Gravitational attraction seems to be the manifestation of some kind of a reaction to this tension in space.

I finally discovered what has been the bug all this time. Just go to the Wikipedia and read up on REALITY. There is a lot of confusion about what is real. The moment this discovery was made, everything came into focus.

I have now replaced KHTK AXIOM ZERO by three pre-logics in the OP (opening post) above.